BCCI wants 'prime' home season

The BCCI is looking to establish a "prime season" for the Indian cricket team at home much like it is in England and Australia, thus reducing the team's touring commitments in the winter.

BCCI president N Srinivasan said: "We are starting to look at and define our prime season, and during your prime season you should be playing at home." Speaking exclusively to ESPNcricinfo, Srinivasan said formalising the Indian season would mean a structured calendar of teams touring India. "We want to have possibly one or two visiting teams during our domestic season, starting in September all the way up to March, and we'll see the extent to which we don't tour outside. Given the FTP that is there, we are going to see how we can adjust."

Domestic cricket would also be rescheduled to make home Tests the centre piece of the season, and encourage more international players to take part in the Ranji Trophy. Srinivasan said: "This year we also encouraged our big players and stars to play domestic cricket. This is a change from the last several years." The Ranji format has been changed to three groups of nine teams each, the BCCI had been told by first-class players, that they wanted to play more cricket.

The BCCI's measures over the last few years, Srinivasan said, had sought to improve the quality of cricket particularly of the longer form of the game. "That is where the emphasis is. An uncapped player who has not played for India cannot play in the IPL unless he plays 60% of the Ranji Trophy games. So in more ways than one, we are pushing a player to the longer version."

In a wide-ranging interview, which will appear in full on ESPNcricinfo on Tuesday, Srinivasan spoke about issues concerning Indian cricket, the BCCI's financial power in world cricket, its refusal to accept the mandatory application of the umpire's Decision Review System (DRS), and the IPL's growing influence on players all over the world and the longer form of the game.

Srinivasan denied that the BCCI had taken an 'obstructionist' approach to the DRS. "We have not taken an obstructionist policy. We don't believe in it, so after discussion members have agreed it should be bilateral. I don't want to dictate to other people… our position has been clear from start. We don't believe the technology is good enough."

He said the ICC's statement that the DRS technology had "improved further" was in a way "acceptance that it was not good enough then" referring to the India tour of England last year. "But it was touted as being good at that point in time. Our problem is that when they say it is all right, then they say it'll get better tomorrow, or an improved version now. So we concede the fact that there was less than adequate perfection. Which is our point, if you want to use technology it must be perfect."

Srinivasan also said that restricting the DRS to two referrals was in some ways a contradiction in itself. "If you don't have faith in the umpire, which itself is a contradiction as in cricket the umpire's verdict is final, if a player shows dissent you fine him. But now you're saying that I have two attempts to question your decision. So the reconciliation between that is difficult. So if you take it to the end point of it, then you have two lampposts with coloured lights red, yellow and green, you don't need an umpire at all, as you refer every decision, so let an automatic reply come from there after a review and you say red or green."

So if you take it to the end point of it, then you have two lampposts with coloured lights red, yellow and green, you don't need an umpire at all, as you refer every decision, so let an automatic reply come from there after a review and you say red or green

The BCCI continues to resist the DRS

India's unwillingness to use the DRS means that there are two officiating systems at work in world cricket, to which Srinivasan said: "It doesn't bother me at all because, apart from all this, there is a cost to DRS and there are only one or two people involved. It's a monopoly-area situation, which I am not going in to here. It doesn't bother me if two other countries use DRS, they are happy, that's okay."

The ICC he said had the right to use DRS in its own events, but the BCCI was very clear in its stand on its usage in any bilateral series featuring India. "We are clear in our mind, but I hope, slowly, people will see our point of view."

The IPL, the BCCI's "showcase event" did not, he said, have a negative bearing on international cricket and the BCCI's refusal to ask for a window for the event, was based on the acceptance of the overseas players' packed international calendars. "The IPL management, the BCCI, franchise owners are aware that all the players won't be available all the time, and we've sort of settled down with that."

The IPL he said was not putting "a strain" on other boards. The event's popularity amongst overseas players were a reflection that, "it's a free world. People and players make their choices and we can't compel a person… I don't think that it is all-consuming." While the IPL attracts cricketers from all over the world, he said, "there are only so many players who can play in the IPL, because we have a cap on the number of players in the team. And from what I have seen, players may not be happy to sit out as we have a cap on foreign players. So squad size and the number of franchises have a limiting effect."

The BCCI he said was aware that there was "no real window" available on the international calendar for the IPL. "The BCCI has recognised that today you have ten Full Members, they play each other home and away once in four years. The number of ICC events has increased from ten years ago, so there's a lot of clutter. So the BCCI accepts the fact that there is no real window and that whoever is available plays."

The BCCI's reputation as a bully on the ICC board he said, was "not fair" - and denied that other boards would be wary of going against the BCCI's wishes. "That is not a fact. In the ICC all members are sovereign. The ten full members are sovereign."

Despite India's 8-0 defeats in England and Australia, Srinivasan said it was not fair to say that India got exposed when travelling abroad. "It's not that we get exposed when we go abroad. Every country is used to its own conditions, whether it is England, South Africa, Australia, so they tend to play better in home conditions, which is what we also do."

He said the media in the other teams did not end up "berating their players for not doing well [abroad]" and that there had to be an acceptance and recognition of the "advantage of home conditions… So I don't think we should run down our players by saying we did not do well abroad. Other teams don't do well when they come to India. In the past, we have had teams that have done well both here and abroad, when players were possibly younger."

BCCI, INDIAN TEAM,CAPTAIN,COACH,SELECTORS are responsible for India's
PATHETIC DISPLAY in the third test versus England and recent form of the team.

here2rock
on December 6, 2012, 2:54 GMT

Make the domestic season more meaningful, less teams and less trophies. There are so many teams that it is hard to remember even for diehard fans. Why not have the Ranji Trophy based on Zone basis only? North, South, West and East Zone, sound good to me and easy to follow for players. You need to replicate the Test match standard at your domestic level so the players can be identified. Take the mediocrity out the system; some of the standard players playing these matches is not first class so why call it first class? Some of these players would not even make grade cricket in Australia, England or South Africa let alone representing state team.

Crikoot
on December 6, 2012, 0:30 GMT

Can ICC do the same to BCCI what IOC has done to Indian Olympic Committee? Their stunt on DRS is so much over the top -- unbelievable. Arrogance don't last.

on December 5, 2012, 22:36 GMT

Its high time for BCCI to introduce some technology in domestic cricket, a review system is not a bad idea at all, yes one can debate over the no. of review a team can ask. I think even umpires must have the right to use hawk eye and hot spot when they are not 100 % sure, the aim should be to assist & improve umpiring not to humiliate someone.....

DDrocks
on December 5, 2012, 18:37 GMT

2 GAMES left in the world that refuse to use technology, even when it helps the game improve... Indian Cricket and Soccer... what a shame!

CSK_greatest_of_all
on December 5, 2012, 16:46 GMT

Dont understand why our own Indian people are against BCCI...first of all when ECB and CA use to rule the cricket world we were not even given a say about these things.....when the players come to play to India look at the welcome they get and whn we go to their countries look at the respect we get....
A similar thing like DRS was invented by an Indian guy but ICC rejected it, now why should we be paying for DRS and Hawkeye when they dont let an Indian invention in cricket....long live BCCI and its power in cricket

on December 5, 2012, 15:47 GMT

@frkislam: All other TV technologies improves decision making of the umpires. They are used at the discretion of umpires. But, DRS is used by players to challenge umpires, and that too only twice in unsuccessful reviews : No logic though. If all decisions are allowed to challenge, then there is no need for an umpire. My personal opinion is that, DRS can be used only at the umpires discretion.

on December 5, 2012, 14:28 GMT

Having IPL every year is like being forced into a circus again and again. I wish IPL was held biennially and not annually. Because its too damn long and way too much endure every year. People are more interested in watching more series and tri-series rather than being forced on to watch the same damn thing every year.

frkislam
on December 5, 2012, 12:50 GMT

The BCCI's position on DRS is illogical in the extreme.
First of all, let's remember that television is a two-dimensional representation of a 3D world and so is inherently not "perfect". Should we therefore not use TV?
With regard to other technologies used in cricket (stump cam, run-out reviews), are these perfect? How often have we seen batsmen given not-out because the intervals between two camera frames have not allowed for a conclusive determination of whether the bat was over the line when the bails were being lifted? And what about all those slow motion shots which fail to prove whether a catch was cleanly claimed or not? None of these technologies are perfect but nonetheless they improve decision making. If the BCCI can accept these, why not DRS?

drei
on December 5, 2012, 11:21 GMT

And still, after all this debate they can't come up with a more cogent explanation of the DRS position. temporarily, I do think that BCCI's opposition is helping improve the DRS, but it wont in the long term if the supplier exits cricket! This is not the right way to drive your supplier to improve quality if that's what he's concerned about. The right way is to first offer a contract, then measure quality quantitatively and impose cash or other penalties for failing to meet targets. Equally ECB's and in general UK's unquestioning support of these technologies clearly has a lot to do about the origin of the companies peddling them. Some of this tech is patent protected and it's hard for a competitor to get into the market. So what he says about monopoly situation (and doesnt say about lobbying) should concern everyone.
Even so, the BCCIs methods are ham handed to say the least & its very surprising Srinivasan runs a successful big business himself.

Naresh28
on December 6, 2012, 23:43 GMT

BCCI, INDIAN TEAM,CAPTAIN,COACH,SELECTORS are responsible for India's
PATHETIC DISPLAY in the third test versus England and recent form of the team.

here2rock
on December 6, 2012, 2:54 GMT

Make the domestic season more meaningful, less teams and less trophies. There are so many teams that it is hard to remember even for diehard fans. Why not have the Ranji Trophy based on Zone basis only? North, South, West and East Zone, sound good to me and easy to follow for players. You need to replicate the Test match standard at your domestic level so the players can be identified. Take the mediocrity out the system; some of the standard players playing these matches is not first class so why call it first class? Some of these players would not even make grade cricket in Australia, England or South Africa let alone representing state team.

Crikoot
on December 6, 2012, 0:30 GMT

Can ICC do the same to BCCI what IOC has done to Indian Olympic Committee? Their stunt on DRS is so much over the top -- unbelievable. Arrogance don't last.

on December 5, 2012, 22:36 GMT

Its high time for BCCI to introduce some technology in domestic cricket, a review system is not a bad idea at all, yes one can debate over the no. of review a team can ask. I think even umpires must have the right to use hawk eye and hot spot when they are not 100 % sure, the aim should be to assist & improve umpiring not to humiliate someone.....

DDrocks
on December 5, 2012, 18:37 GMT

2 GAMES left in the world that refuse to use technology, even when it helps the game improve... Indian Cricket and Soccer... what a shame!

CSK_greatest_of_all
on December 5, 2012, 16:46 GMT

Dont understand why our own Indian people are against BCCI...first of all when ECB and CA use to rule the cricket world we were not even given a say about these things.....when the players come to play to India look at the welcome they get and whn we go to their countries look at the respect we get....
A similar thing like DRS was invented by an Indian guy but ICC rejected it, now why should we be paying for DRS and Hawkeye when they dont let an Indian invention in cricket....long live BCCI and its power in cricket

on December 5, 2012, 15:47 GMT

@frkislam: All other TV technologies improves decision making of the umpires. They are used at the discretion of umpires. But, DRS is used by players to challenge umpires, and that too only twice in unsuccessful reviews : No logic though. If all decisions are allowed to challenge, then there is no need for an umpire. My personal opinion is that, DRS can be used only at the umpires discretion.

on December 5, 2012, 14:28 GMT

Having IPL every year is like being forced into a circus again and again. I wish IPL was held biennially and not annually. Because its too damn long and way too much endure every year. People are more interested in watching more series and tri-series rather than being forced on to watch the same damn thing every year.

frkislam
on December 5, 2012, 12:50 GMT

The BCCI's position on DRS is illogical in the extreme.
First of all, let's remember that television is a two-dimensional representation of a 3D world and so is inherently not "perfect". Should we therefore not use TV?
With regard to other technologies used in cricket (stump cam, run-out reviews), are these perfect? How often have we seen batsmen given not-out because the intervals between two camera frames have not allowed for a conclusive determination of whether the bat was over the line when the bails were being lifted? And what about all those slow motion shots which fail to prove whether a catch was cleanly claimed or not? None of these technologies are perfect but nonetheless they improve decision making. If the BCCI can accept these, why not DRS?

drei
on December 5, 2012, 11:21 GMT

And still, after all this debate they can't come up with a more cogent explanation of the DRS position. temporarily, I do think that BCCI's opposition is helping improve the DRS, but it wont in the long term if the supplier exits cricket! This is not the right way to drive your supplier to improve quality if that's what he's concerned about. The right way is to first offer a contract, then measure quality quantitatively and impose cash or other penalties for failing to meet targets. Equally ECB's and in general UK's unquestioning support of these technologies clearly has a lot to do about the origin of the companies peddling them. Some of this tech is patent protected and it's hard for a competitor to get into the market. So what he says about monopoly situation (and doesnt say about lobbying) should concern everyone.
Even so, the BCCIs methods are ham handed to say the least & its very surprising Srinivasan runs a successful big business himself.

TommytuckerSaffa
on December 5, 2012, 8:49 GMT

People saying DRS is not 100% accurate. Of course its not 100% accurate but its better be 80% accurate than have 100% possibility of human error. Maybe DRS shouldnt not be used by the players and umpires use it when they are 'not sure' but the concept is a good one as it reverses terrible decisions. All this because when India did use DRS Dhoni got all the decisions wrong !!!!!

I agree with Srinivisan have a window for touring teams and prioritse Domestic cricket in India to ensure the health of the longer format of the game - these are good ideas. But his thoughts on DRS are unnacceptable to me.

on December 5, 2012, 8:19 GMT

Very very funny to hear, that Mr. Srinivasan and the BCCI still oppose the DRS and the excuses are extremely funny. They oppose DRS, because it is not 100% correct. I would like to ask Mr. Srinivasan, that all the things he uses are 100% perfect. (Ex: any breakdowns of his car, power cuts in the house, burns out an electric bulbs, etc.)

Harmony111
on December 5, 2012, 5:38 GMT

@PureTom: Sometimes I feel ppl did a bit of reading before making such insinuations. BCCI was ready to send its players to SLPL but then it noticed a flaw in the way contacts were offered in SLPL. It was earlier said that the contracts were between the players and the SLB but it later turned out that the contracts were between players and a Somerset based company and the SLB was not backing those contracts. Thus, had something gone wrong regarding payments, SLB would not have been answerable and a private unknown entity would have been diff to catch. To protect the players form any such eventuality BCCI took that step. Nothing wrong in it. If your father is skeptical of a certain employer's credentials he will tell you not to join his company only for your own safety. You find it wrong?

SanjivAwesome
on December 4, 2012, 23:53 GMT

The interviewer and Cricinfo missed the mark completely. There were no questions asked of Mr Top Dog on his stand on improving the facilities and conveniences for least importance constituences of all - the Fans. How long do we have to suffer with concerete jungles, bad food, expensive tickets, no parkings, poor ticketing, horrible facilities, absent wheel chair facilities.

Nampally
on December 4, 2012, 22:11 GMT

"In the past we had teams that did well both here and abroad, when the players were possibly young". Is Mr. S conceding that Indian team is old & hence cannot do well compared to past teams? If so, why doesn't BCCI focus on coaching young guys & fast tracking them into tests? Answer is simple. The old guys won't Retire & the Selectors do not have guts to cut them. If the teams do not perform well abroad, Fans will criticise. Mr. S is stating that is bad. It is one thing to fare badly abroad but to be white washed both in England & Australia does show how poor the team India is. BCCI must take the rap for the poor performance of the team both at home & abroad. If they cannot put a good team on the field, train them by spending more BCCI funds.As for the DRS, I mostly agree with Mr. S's views. Why should we spend so much money on this DRS if it is unreliable. After spending all that you are allowed just 2 challenges in an innings. Why not Spend more on training good Umpires?

mannan_ma
on December 4, 2012, 22:05 GMT

As any human being who is sensible will admit that obsession with perfection is mindless and imperfect.So why is BCCI and it's president still obsessed with perfect technology.As it is DRS is good enough to eliminate many mistakes committed by umpires who are after all human.When technology is available ,make most of it while trying to develop it further.Does BCCI see something in DRS that other cricket bodies of the world don't? I doubt .

Tlotoxl
on December 4, 2012, 21:08 GMT

What a ridiculous position, If india play rubbish away from home so what do they do? not try to make their pitches more in step with the rest of the world, not send players out to play in foreign competitions but to play more at home, ROTFLMAO!

The DRS debate is just as ludicrous as well, no technology is perfect but then neither are the umpires, would you rather have - no DRS and 95% of the decisions right or 99.9% right with DRS?!?!?

on December 4, 2012, 19:35 GMT

So funny... So what this guy is saying, is that the Indian team is like every other team out there by winning at home only... What a joke! Some people just cant admit that their side isn't that strong anymore. The great sides can win everywhere. South Africa comes to mind at this point in time. Australia 10-15 years ago comes to mind and so does the great W.I. team all those years ago. I'm from New Zealand, i can admit we have been terrible over the last 4-6 years. At least i can admit when we aren't that strong. India are well below par, winning at home proves little, winning away like the big boys do is a different story. Its time people started to realise this, time to be honest with yourselves.

As for the DRS... It's here to help us and the umpires out. Simple. India are just being oblivious to it. Time to grow up and help the sport out in a positive manor.

IPL is something i agree with. India has nailed it on the head. Just need to get the timing right now!

SevereCritic
on December 4, 2012, 18:28 GMT

At the rate Indian cricket is devolving into the pre Big Three era, nobody will want to watch IPL anyways unless franchises increased no of foreign players to 11 per team.

DonBrown
on December 4, 2012, 18:25 GMT

No man made system is 100% proof. DRS has improved decision making in cricket. Just ask South Africa, had it not been for DRS they would have lost the 2nd test. Faf du Plessis was given out twice in error by the umpire. What a difference DRS made. By the way, I still think those 2 wrong decisions were extremely bad. It was clear that the ball picthed outside the leg stump for the 1st one and the ball came off the middle of the bat for the 2nd. I can't understand the umpires' call. Thanks for DRS.

YorkshirePudding
on December 4, 2012, 18:05 GMT

I disagree with the BCCI's stance on DRS, simply because its there to allow the correct decision when a howler is made, 2011, the LBW as part of Broads Hat Trick, would have been overturned with DRS in use.

As for the 'vested' interests, Both Hawkeye and Virtual/Eagle eye have been around for a number of years, and I believe that HawkEye is also now owned by Sony a Japanese company, so very little vested interest there from the ECB, Hotspot is an South African invention, and Virtual Eye was developed in NZ not Australia as someone posted, so wheres the vested interest, does that mean if this was an indian invention the BCCI would be pushing it?

200ondebut
on December 4, 2012, 18:02 GMT

The BCCIs stance on DRS is confused - and seems to be based on pettiness over who provides the system. They also don't seem to understand how it works - you get as many reviews as you want - but this is taken away as soon as you get two wrong. This is of course designed to stop the excitable types reviewing everything. Glad to see they are promoting the longer form of the game - perhaps they may couple this by asking their groundsmen to produce wickets that will last five days. LOL! They do seem to have a inferiority complex though. Time to grow up.

iluvtest
on December 4, 2012, 17:31 GMT

@Cpt.Meanster dear sir, I do agree with you that it hurts when our team loses overseas but do you remember when is the last time AUSTRALIA, ENGLAND won series in India? Australia last drawn a series in 1986-87. They won only 2 tests after that and during that period they won every where except India and almost invincible. England last won a series in 1984-85 and only won 2 tests after that. Do that make England or Australia lesser teams?If not why we hound our players?Everybody knows we are the weakest bowling unit. How you are going to win without taking 20 wickets which is clearly impossible with current bowling attack?I do not see one pace bowler who can sustain two matches without injury in domestic matches. How to overcome that is the key to revival of our fortunes.Mr Srinivasan should take some initiative towards grooming some pace bowlers.

on December 4, 2012, 16:49 GMT

Because of Mr. N.Srinivasan's objections DRS has not been accepted by India and it is costing India heavily.All the other countries who are accepting DRS are not sacrificing their interests.Among things that are available DRS is the best that is there.In the bargain we cricket lovers are suffering by the lack of the system.In the recent test match between SAvs AUS, DRS was very helpful.It is our misfortune that Mr.Srinivasan does not agree.It looks like DRS will be accepted only when he retires!

S.Jagernath
on December 4, 2012, 16:11 GMT

Finally India will tour correctly,they tour a ridiculous amount & play very few home tests.

davidatlas999
on December 4, 2012, 14:51 GMT

okay you say its not perfect and the cost is very high.why not agree on simple reply where we can see inside edge on to pad and bat pad catchs.and we see its clearly no tv.hope 3rd umpire have also a say in wrong out.

on December 4, 2012, 14:39 GMT

Selassi, with drs umpires make bolder lbw decisions. For example, taking a step forward no longer makes a batsman immune to LBW. To capture that benefit of drs, but to avoid the hold ups in play and to overcome the objections from the BCCI I'm suggesting that umpires could be rewarded for taking bold decisions, knowing that their decisions will be reviewed at the end of the day by drs. Who's asking for them to be correct 100% of the time? Their decisions will improve and the players will get correct decisions more often. The word of the umpire is final, and teams take the rough with the smooth, but over time decisions will improve and the best umpires will be rewarded and ranked highest.
Try not to call other people's ideas ridiculous.

BlackLusterSoldier
on December 4, 2012, 14:01 GMT

Mr Srinivasan has conveniently forgotten the performance of the top test nation in the world. SA have in fact a MUCH better record away than at home! When Australia were number 1, they had a healthy away record as well (apart from perhaps In India where they did win once in 2004-05). We might be "used to" to our home conditions but adaptability is everything in this sport if you want to ascend to the top. We need to review our performances abroad and make sure that 1. We tour abroad (and I mean outside the sub-continent) more often than we are currently doing and if not the senior team then A-teams and the like. 2. The pitches at home must be modified to tender to the needs of both pacers and spinners and for a change, make the batsmen do the hard work. It will infect make us better batsmen.

Philip_Gnana
on December 4, 2012, 13:38 GMT

Bilateral? Srinivasan must be joking. BCCI enforces its view on the opponents where DRS is concerned. It is just one way traffic. If it was Bi-Lateral it would mean just the Indian home games being without the DRS. It was forced on the hosts by the BCCI. Money talks.
What do they expect the Technology to be? 100% perfect first time out? How did the run out systems improve? Better equipment with the advancements in technology. To be bury their heads in the sand and accept controversial human errors in preference to few errors via DRS is beyond me. The changes with balls, why not stick to the old brands? Has not standards changed?
DRS is the same for all and is still a far better system compared to human error. We will never ever have a PERFECT system. The laws of cricket itself is subjective. In-Line, out-line, etc are all subjective to the human eye. What is okay for one human being is not for the other.
TYPICAL of the BCCI.

itsthewayuplay
on December 4, 2012, 13:31 GMT

Srinivasan misses the point about playing away from home. We don't expect India to win a series or even a match away from home. What we want is selection based on proven form and fitness. We want players to be committed to give their the best eg Sachin skips the WI tour prior to England in the belief he can just turn up and score runs. We don't bowlers recalled from sunning themselves on a Miami beach being expected to perform. We don't want 1 in 20 performers such as Sehwag who after scoring a century throws his wicket away until his place is called in to question. We want players to be flexible eg Dravid opening the innings and unlike Tendulkar's refusal to move to no 3 in conditions where he was next best equipped for it. We don't want to hear players saying overseas 'just wait till you come to India because (1) they clearly don't understand the meaning of an overseas tour and (2) it's embarassing when they then lose at home.

PureTom
on December 4, 2012, 13:25 GMT

"it's a free world. People and players make their choices and we can't compel a person… I don't think that it is all-consuming."
Is this, Mr N. Srinivasan, why the BCCI refused to allow any Indian players in the SPL, because of their right to free choice, or because you can't compel them?

itsthewayuplay
on December 4, 2012, 13:15 GMT

Whilst I'm not sure whether the BCCI is a bully in that it wants to hide inadequacies or intentionally abuses it powers although the Harbajan / Andrew Symonds may have been an exception to this. Certainly its financial clout means that it does pull a lot of strings in international cricket to achieve its objective which is to maximise profits. The BCCI is motivated by revenue generation and will do what it can to protect this interest whereas its stance on cricketing issues such as DRS is driven by players.

on December 4, 2012, 12:45 GMT

however the point of saying dont use DRS until it is perfect is really rhidiculous. what technology is perfect. what is the standard. where do u draw the line. those kind of responses are obstructive. Now its up to the indian people to work out if htey want to pursue it. I just hope all other boards continue to use it

here2rock
on December 4, 2012, 12:28 GMT

Too many trophies, too many teams and IPL too long. The whole system needs an overhaul. It is about time India has it's own structured season, an idea coming from Rahul Dravid a few months ago.

TRIC
on December 4, 2012, 12:23 GMT

All the commentators here are either bashing the BCCI or missing a simple point or a trick, Indians would embrace the DRS if its not restricted to 3 and is increased upto say 12. Simply our great flat track batsman of all eras would always challenge the umpires for all LBW's, catches which are not clear. Shame on BCCI to sucuumb to sachin say.

Sakthiivel
on December 4, 2012, 11:59 GMT

Good idea to put foreign player with India young talents in Ranji.

Indian_Cricket_Fanatic
on December 4, 2012, 11:57 GMT

I like that BCCI is trying to restructure the indian domestic home season and from the grass-root level re-manage it. However, I do not fancy IPL. IPL has only brought an end to indian cricket.There are about 5-9 domestic trophies in India right now. Why do we need so many? One for each format is best bet. India's top players should have the chance to perform and play domestic season's like England's players do in their county season. BCCI is very lucky to have so much money generated, should invest rightly in rebuilding the domestic structure.
As far as the DRS is concerned, it's fair call to say if DRS is not perfect we should not use it. I believe, using technology is better for fair decisions but it should be umpire's choice to review and not the players. Players should in no ways given the right to question the Umpire's decision. It kills the spirit. Umpire is the final man and if the decision is tough one he shall be allowed to use review. But his decision should be final.

Selassie-I
on December 4, 2012, 11:24 GMT

@ by on (December 04 2012, 10:43 AM GMT) So we should be punishing umpires for the wrong decision but not actually trying to get the right one for the teams? I don't agree with that at all - no umpire is going to be 100% perfect all the time and it's ridiculous to ask for one to be.

However I do hugely agree with your last statement, we surely have the technology to hand over the no ball decision to the 3rd umpire, he can press a button making a sound in the on field umpire's earpiece as soon as the bowler oversteps, then the on-field ump can raise his arm signaling this. I don't think there would be any delay compared to now - just if we take the front foot no ball out of the on field umpire's hands he can concentrate on the batsmans end and surely this would increase the quality of decision making.

RickMiranda
on December 4, 2012, 11:23 GMT

This DRS business is subjective and complicated. Make things simple... Apply French Cricket rule...the moment the ball touches the pads or even if you are caught off the pads you are out. This arguement that he was in line of the wicket or the ball would go above the wicket or miss the leg or off stump is a figment of the mind of what your eyes want to see. Or make the machine draw an imaginery tracjectory of the ball!! You are given a bat to defend or strike the ball. In hockey you can play only with your hockey stick...the days of palming the ball are gone. Despite shin guards, if the ball touches your body it is a foul. In soccer you can touch the ball except with your hands.Change the the LBW rule!!

Secondly, the umpires on the field and the third umpire...will make decisions. There will be no referral system. The umpires can work in rotation on and off the field

More than DRS...need to review the D/L system ...in limited overs

on December 4, 2012, 11:01 GMT

DRS is not full proof. Why do we need umpires then? DRS has an option umpires call . This option speaks for itself.

jmcilhinney
on December 4, 2012, 10:57 GMT

The assertion that technology has to be perfect or else it should not be used is simply the stupidest point of view anyone could ever hold. What else in cricket is perfect, such that DRS technology should be held to such a high standard? Why is it not acceptable to use a technology that is good now and yet still try to make it better for the future? I'd say that the BCCI is not perfect so maybe they should be done away with until it can prove that it will get everything right 100% of the time. The India cricket team is far from perfect. Maybe they should stop playing international cricket until they can prove that they will never do anything wrong. The DRS is certainly not perfect and so there are logical arguments against it but that is certainly not one of them. If perfection is the benchmark then we may as well just give cricket away altogether right now. What a load of twaddle.

Selassie-I
on December 4, 2012, 10:54 GMT

Again, it is worrying that the whole of the BCCI's and the team's attitude is that you are just going to lose away from home and win at home, I would have liked to see some plans to improve the teams performance away from home rather than justb settling.

Imagine if it were organised for young Indian player to do a season in the counties, in the shield or grade, and in SA or WI, and in return young players were invited over to play a season in the Ranji - would this not improve the quality of test cricket in the future?

As for the 'other countries press' not berrating them when they lose abroad, he quite clearly didn't hear Geoff Boycott on England after the UAE debacle. Also, no other team had quite as bad a run as India away, so they should get the worst reports, surely? He quite clearly doesn't read Australian newspapers when they lose! What does he think they say? 'well done lads, that's the first time in 25 years the pommies beat us at home, there's alweays next time'.

farhanamjadpk
on December 4, 2012, 10:53 GMT

For all those people who are against DRS!!! let me remind them that DRS Played a major role in India becoming World Champion 2011. Scratch ur memory and recall Tendulkar dismissal in semis, that was a clear dismissal through naked eye bt DRS saved him and eventually he played match winning innings.. In fact experts put that decision in the negative aspect of DRS.. Bt I still believe its a great technology and some what the other helps the teams and umpire to eradicate unfair decisions.. BCCI is in a soup over it as it wants to accept it but finding it hard to reverse its original decision.. If u have doubts in DRS Then also have doubts in becoming WC!!

on December 4, 2012, 10:43 GMT

Here's an idea for DRS. No doubt the technology helps to get correct decisions, but it does interrupt the flow of the game, and it does seem paradoxical to only allow two incorrect referrals. However, umpires are much more likely to give a LBW decision with drs than without, and batsmen have for far too long made careers out of use of the pad. Hotspot and snicko definitely take doubt out of edges.
So how about removing the ability of players to refer. So DRS is no longer the last resort, and won't save anyone from a howler. Instead, an umpire's decisions are reviewed using drs after the event, and his ranking and pay are determined by his accuracy of his decisions. The existing rules could apply regarding half ball and benefit of the doubt going with the original decision (benefit of the doubt goes to the umipire). The umpires keep the ability to refer run outs and stumpings. An alarm could warn the umpire of a no ball, as it happens like in tennis.

Selassie-I
on December 4, 2012, 10:42 GMT

Also the idea of the 2 reviews is that the teams don't just review absolutley everything, thus slowing down the game. As has been said so many times, DRS is there to get rid of the 'stinker' decision, not to change marginal decisions. I'd be happy with perhaps 1 DRS review, so that the teams only really use itfor a shocker and not just in case their star batsman might've been hit half an inch outside the line.

I would like him to back himself up with some evidence, rather than hearsay and his interpretation of things.

cricmatters
on December 4, 2012, 10:39 GMT

DRS should be taken out of player's hands. If the umpires are not sure and want to use the technology, they can refer to the third umpire and make an informed decision. DRS is great in detecting nicks, bat/pad catches, no balls and run outs however it is very limited in judging LBW decisions. I would like to see the third umpire to become an active part of decision making process except LBW's. As soon a batsman is given out, the third umpire should automatically check for no balls or any howlers like inside edge onto pads given as LBW etc. and intervene to reverse the decision by calling the batsman back. Better decisions will make the game more interesting to watch.

Selassie-I
on December 4, 2012, 10:37 GMT

Some good statements there, at least the BCCI are trying to push younger players towards the longer forms of the game and they should on one hand have a standardised season - althogh they have to be aware that they share their season with all fo the other southern hemisphere teams - England and WI are the only teams with the opposite season so with this are they now refusing to tour SA, NZ and Aus? I thought that we would be moving towards a more united schedule with the test world championship. With all teams playing each other at least twice, home and away every 4 years.

I do have a problem with the stance on DRS, no it's not perfect, but it does get more decisions right than without it. I buy a new TV, I know that at some point it will break, maybe in 5 or 10 years time, so it's not perfect - does Mr Srinivasan not buy a TV on this basis as it's not perfect? Nothing in life really is perfect so he's going to have a long wait!

nilaksh
on December 4, 2012, 10:12 GMT

DRS is a joke. Srinivasan has hit the nail on the head when he hints at vested interests behind use of ball tracking technologies. If its so awesome then why don't australia use hawk eye and england use virtaul eye? Reason is that they want to sell this crap to the rest of the world but would not believe in it either. Power to BCCI, English and Aussies are always going to rue the days when they ruled the cricket world and molded the rules to they wishes.

ShanTheFanOfSachin
on December 4, 2012, 9:58 GMT

I am not against DRS, But for me the DRS should either be mandatory in its FULL or not be used at all!. Its absurd to have 'minimum' and then bilateral teams can top it up with other technologies, thats ridiculous. Assume we have FULL DRS in AUS vs SA series and you have only minimum DRS in IND vs ENG. So effectively its not a level playing field. So one country may lose out on ICC rankings, isn't it?. BCCI may be the richest,but other boards are NOT. So they must find a way for the funding and it should be implemented in FULL. Even the current situation of optional DRS creates the same issue.

I like one point from Srinivasan that IND must have its prime season.Even now India are playing matches during off-season when other big teams are free.I am sure this will create a big issue when the current FTP ends

on December 4, 2012, 9:47 GMT

@ jahufer..i think u only cherry pick to suit ur views here,u said Patel was given wrongly out in 1st tests and with DRS he'd have been not out and eng wud have won(so many if's and but's) BUT u forgot to mention that Patel was clearly out Plumb earlier but not given,so with DRS he'd have been out earlier,similarly Cook was Plumb on 26 in 2nd innings but not given and he went on to score 176..write the whole story

Gurram
on December 4, 2012, 9:15 GMT

about DRS, good that BCCI straight away says technology is not good enough, unlike other cricket boards utilize it to prove that DRS has some problems.

on December 4, 2012, 9:14 GMT

"He said the media in the other teams did not end up "berating their players for not doing well [abroad]" and that there had to be an acceptance and recognition of the "advantage of home conditions… So I don't think we should run down our players by saying we did not do well abroad."

- Really? Really??? Try being a New Zealand supporter then. Our media constantly savages our side for our slipups both at home and abroad. Try our fans, who are as caustic as you will find, only more than ready to voice our frustrations with our players and setup. Mr Srinivasan is completely out of touch with reality, as his ridiculous comments on all points show. Look at the howlers McCullum has had in the last few months as far as LBWs are concerned. If DRS had been used, he would have been reprieved at least 3 times by now, in the series both against India and Sri Lanka.

Narayan.Shastri
on December 4, 2012, 9:07 GMT

Mr Srinivasan, if you want the longer formats of Indian domestic cricket, for example Ranji, Duleep Trophy tournaments to be more exciting, make more than 90%,if not all of the grounds in India to help fast bowlers - better to outsource the pitch preparation job to the WACA Perth and Kingsmead Durban curators. Indian pitches need to be a fast bowler's delight, with bounce and carry.

At present, only Ludhiana, Mohali, and to some extent Bengaluru pitches help fast bowlers, with sufficient bounce and good carry to the wicket-keeper.

Do you agree, fellow-readers?

jahufer
on December 4, 2012, 9:00 GMT

Reply to sooryan_India... the umpire decision was wrong in the 1st Test match as well, Samith Patel was given LBW for Umash Yadave in both innings, but both were wrong decision when we saw in the slow motion. India could have lost the 1st Test if they used the DRS..lol..

Sooryan_Indian
on December 4, 2012, 8:44 GMT

BCCI being the richest cricket governing body in the world is speaking about the expenses that the DRS consumes. This is a clear joke.
If BCCI is so concerned about the quality of the game and the accuracy of decision making, why can't it spend money and apply DRS with better accuracy taht what we get from our umpires now?

How many decisions have we seen been over turned and fair calls being made in matches before, so thats the advantage of DRS

Harmony111
on December 4, 2012, 8:33 GMT

@Brigitte Cowden: Oh come on what rubbish are you talking about? You mean other boards have the right to decide upon THEIR prime time duration but BCCI doesn't have that right? Where does this IF ALL COUNTRIES argument come from? Every country has the right to decide about its calendar and that includes BCCI too. They had not done it so far but they are now going to do that, nothing is wrong in it except the way your see it with your biased eyes. If the climate of India allows a longer calendar then it is good. If England or other countries are unlucky in having that sort of climate then why should BCCI change its plans? Tell me, will UK change its calendar to accommodate the new calendar of BCCI? I guess no, then I could turn around and say that ECB is being a Bully and is pushing its own agenda through...see? Its easy to make wild allegations by putting on biased glasses. Get rid of them and concede that BCCI has as much right to decide upon its Prime Time. BCCI isn't a Bully.

spinkingKK
on December 4, 2012, 8:29 GMT

@kitten, the DRS is there to eliminate the shocking decisions. The players shouldn't be asking for reveiw for borderline decisions when they think that the ball may be just hitting bails or when a batsman thinks that he may have got is pad outside the offstump just in time. So, it is only fair that they lose one review for it, if they are going to misuse the DRS. So, if the players are so certain that a decision was wrong by the umpire, they can use it. Otherwise, accept the decision and get on with the game without delaying the proceedings.

ooper_cut
on December 4, 2012, 8:24 GMT

I cannot understand the DRS propagators here. Do you actually have any idea what it is or how it works ? You guys just want to sit on the other side of the fence and throw stones. If only BCCI is against it, then that is only one series in 2 years for every other country and for every other series these countries play, they can have 'em all the time. BCCI is attracting a lot of attention for all the monetary assistance it provides to some of these wealthy countries majority of whose public give a damn about cricket. I am sure DRS is a waste of time and an irritant on a cricket field, perfect or not, it wastes time, stops the flow of the game and still you could get it wrong. Did Viv Richards or Gary Sobers or Len Hutton concern themselves with "Did I put my pad in line ?' or 'Did i not put my bat across the line ?' stuff. Everyone played, sometimes they got howlers too and they did not TV replays to say that to them, they knew it, accepted it and walked on.

spinkingKK
on December 4, 2012, 8:20 GMT

I, really, couldn't clearly understand Srinivasan's explanation of their refusal to accept DRS. One thing I understood is that he says it is not perfect. But, why does it have to be perfect? It is, definitely, more perfect than the umpires. So, use it while it is improving. One reason why India lost those 8 test matches abroad was also due to the non-use of DRS. For example, if there was no DRS used in the recently concluded Aus Vs SA series, South Africa would have lost the series, possibily, 2-0. Because, Du Plesis would have been given out by that crooked finger of Billy Bowden in the second test and SA would have crumbled to defeat. Then, at the back of that defeat if they were 6/75 in the third test, they would have been all-out within 100 and Australia would have inflicted an humiliating defeat in 2.5 days. There were crucial bad decisions in all the defeats India had on those tours and that may have changed the result of whole of those series. SO, JUST THINK IT AGAIN!!

on December 4, 2012, 8:07 GMT

If the president himself has defended for the poor performance overseas,how can the players will improve ? His comment is a cover up for the failure and we can foresee our players poor play also in the future.

Sooryan_Indian
on December 4, 2012, 7:33 GMT

BCCI's stand on DRS is absolutely unacceptable.

My question is, without DRS is umpiring and decision making accurate?
We saw how umpires messed up with their decision making in the second test in mumbai.

game has moved on as ages and time changed.
So as in other sports, cricket has to move on and ther is nothing wrong in having a 90 or 95% accurate DRS rather that having to depend on umpires who are prone to make more errors than technology.

Naresh28
on December 4, 2012, 7:33 GMT

TOTALLY AGREE about our cream players not playing each other in domestic
matches. This is another reason we play poorly. Most of the time the top
players are touring or warming benches. If top players play each other e.g.
Ranji then we will see a better standards. Better bowlers and better batsman
will need to stand up. For example someone like Pankaj Singh will have the
opportunity to bowl to Shewag. We need to identify openers who have the
technique to withstand "foreign pace bowlers"

on December 4, 2012, 7:30 GMT

Mr. Srinivasan if you are listening. how about finding out quality bowlers? India needs them more than anytime. The current system is not worthy of producing good fast bowlers, even the art of spin is dying (see leg spin). It is the need of the hour we should create a pool of good fast bowler and train them in bouncy friendly pitches....may be apply the Kumble idea (for which he resigned).other ideas are welcomed.

on December 4, 2012, 7:21 GMT

"… our position has been clear from start. We don't believe the technology is good enough."
This is an extremely weak arguement from BCCI to avoid DRS. There is a reason why science developed margin of error principle as technology can never be 100% correct. If the humanity followed BCCI's ideology, then wouldnt have internet or cars or mobile phones or computers...hell we would still be living in dark ages!!

VivtheGreatest
on December 4, 2012, 7:04 GMT

Srinivasan should stop making excusese for failures abroad. To be honest,though a lot of my countrymen may not like it, India becoming number one in Tests was more by default. We've never had the firepower to win consistently abroad even though there were some delightful and unexpected victories like in Perth and Durban in totally alien conditions. Now with the golden generation of batsmen also reduced to its last member (albeit for how long??) I really dont see us winning anything significant abroad. The bowling is just not good enough and Kohli and Pujara seem to be the only class batsmen as Sehwag and Gambhir are not consistent enough and the rest of the current team are not Test class, though there are better players waiting in the wings

Varun_R123
on December 4, 2012, 7:02 GMT

If Srinivasan tells umpire's decision must be respected, then he must tell Dhoni not to question umpire's decisions, which he did in the first test.

Bharath_the_Indian
on December 4, 2012, 6:59 GMT

I personally think that Srinivasan's points on DRS and Ranji trophy are great

kitten
on December 4, 2012, 6:36 GMT

I personally feel DRS appeals should not be given to the teams. The reason I say this is because, sometimes a decision is given 'not out', and after the appeal, the ball is shown to be hitting the tip, or the edge of the stumps, but just because the umpire has said 'not out', the decision stays. For God's sake, the batsman is clearly out, and the decision should be overturned! To add salt to the wound, the team who made the appeal, loses one appeal. What a load of nonsense. The ideal situation, would be for the third umpire who is supposed to be watching the entire game(I hope) on his TV or monitor, should rectify all wrong decisions, and also 'no balls'. That way, hopefully, very, very few wrong decisions will take place, and both teams will be equally satisfied.

sundarsingh19
on December 4, 2012, 6:33 GMT

There is no excuse for 8-0 loss. selectors should take some bold decisions by selecting young guns.

on December 4, 2012, 6:11 GMT

If all countries have a PRIME season, then no one will tour anywhere. Besides are we kidding? They want a prime season between September to March. That's 7 months of the year and then the IPL which has now ballooned out to 2 months, so essentially the Indian board want to monopolise 9 months of the year? And they're trying to tell the rest of the world that they're not bullies?

electric_loco_WAP4
on December 4, 2012, 6:01 GMT

I know where he is coming from regards DRS and that it is not '100 %' . Afterall it is been found to make correct the howlers about 98% of the time- by ICC's stats and study of the system- the rest about 2% 'marginal' calls that cant be overturned and stays to the benefit of the ump's origin decision. No doubt who wins when looking at India's overseas record ...an awesome e.g of 'perfection' i.e 100% - 8 out 8 in Eng and Aus combined -that is one cent % record not likely to be matched!!... At least he is honest that his team is '100%' at something ....while DRS can only as close to 'perfect' but still is not absolute '100%'.....Ind is really lucky such people are heading its cricket !......Of what use are those Dave Richardsons and co of ICC..?? Learn from mighty BCCI i'd say -:).....

vswami
on December 4, 2012, 5:56 GMT

On DRS, take the example of soccer. Europeans have been resisting goal line technology in soccer to preserve the "beautiful game", and avoid the lamp post situation that Srinivasan describes. They have instead added more officials. Every match is riddled with contentious off sides, penalties, red and yellow cards, that can easily be resolved with technology and yet they live with errors to preserve the flow of the game. Just as there are two views in soccer, there are two views in cricket. One may not agree with Srinivasan, but its not without merit.

vijay_TN
on December 4, 2012, 5:51 GMT

Mr. Srinivasan's logic on DRS is baffling. How can a system become perfect? Only by usage. Now, if one says that he will use only when it is perfect, how can that be. So, basically, his motive is different from the words spoken or position taken. Sure, the costs is one factor and the opinion of players is another. But this talk of having a perfect system is pure sham.

on December 4, 2012, 5:38 GMT

Nonesense arguments regarding DRS....................Every technology can improve..............................but will u stop using technology.............................DRS in its initial stage was better than umpires & now it is far better...............................A doctor takes your signatures before operation that there is no guarentee of success in operation (use of tehnology) but u still agree to undergo operation DONT U??....................Bcz the probablity of success using technology is far higher than otherwise.............PERIOD !

YorkshirePudding
on December 4, 2012, 5:12 GMT

It makes sense to have a prime season most of the other major boards do as mentioned in the article, and its good to hear that the Ranji trophy teams will be encouraged to select overseas players, though it may back fire as players become more accustomed to sub-continent conditions....In regards to DRS, I agree that the umpires decision is final, though when you snick a ball onto your pad and get given LBW your going to feel a little annoyed, and its not dissent is disappointment. Also maybe the BCCI should remember these words and not hound umpires that give decisions against them that on review are shown to be incorrect (Bucknor, Harper, etc), out of the game.

RoJayao
on December 4, 2012, 5:01 GMT

Agree on the DRS, as a system it's terrible and does not improve cricket in any way. The rest however is rubbish and if India really want to make their home season the same as Australia and South Africa, they're in for trouble!

--HoMeR--
on December 4, 2012, 4:57 GMT

Its funny how N Srinivasan downplays India's 8-0 defeats abroad just on the basis of home advantage instead of holding the players accountable. They should have been more prepared to handle the conditions in England and Australia before heading there.

TheOrestes
on December 4, 2012, 4:52 GMT

"An uncapped player who has not played for India cannot play in the IPL unless he plays 60% of the Ranji Trophy games" --- SPOT ON !

TRIC
on December 4, 2012, 4:43 GMT

As a indian i would like to state the following which impedes the implementation of DRS to a max of 3 per innings
1. Indians very emotional and take decision thereby jeopardising the DRS chance.
2. Indian batsman or bowlers are reverred a lot and hence when the decision goes against them they ask for a review instatntly and conveniently forgetting the basics of team/ partner consultation before asking for one.
3. Because of their initial experience in DRS, they dont want to test again.
4. The neutral umpires and match referee can be done away with and local city umpires and TV umpire can do the duty thereby some cost savings can be obtained by implementation of DRS.

I am sure DRS will be acceptable to the indians if the limitations are removed totally.
Further, the first innings should be restricted to a max of 4.5 sessions and the 2nd innings should be restricted to 3 sessions only with a max of 84 overs per day to compensate for the DRS delay.

fastrack10
on December 4, 2012, 4:33 GMT

they want a PERFECT system, & when ever any upgradation happens does that make the previous version lesser?ya it does in a sense..but does that mean Windows will stop upgrading their OS version?so just image if we go by this logic BCCI officials are yet to start using computers, because every few years Windows keeps upgrading therr OS, therefore it means they are yet to perfect it...hahahaaa..this is a joke.why are they turning blind eye to the basic..even if by using a half perfect system we can reduce few mistakes made by the umpires then whats the harm in that?no system is perfect & it will never be.if all starts getting perfect then the world will stop working.

on December 4, 2012, 3:43 GMT

India needs to stop making excuses for their away losses. take a look now England beat India at home so why cant India beat England at their home. Pakistan beat England 2 times in past few years on away games. India is always making new excuses. Any team can be good at home but only a strong team can conquer another at their own roots.

challagalla
on December 4, 2012, 2:57 GMT

I fail to see Mr. Srinivasan's point about DRS. If anything the ongoing England - India test series reinforces the need to have DRS uniformly everywhere. His comment DRS is a monopoly area situation is without merit. When the market is so small it is very unlikely companies will rush to develop competing technologies .Atleast here we have two companies offering DRS and thats good enough competition.

on December 4, 2012, 2:13 GMT

Its all business... DRS is very good even though it has limitations but very rare.
I think DHoni and BCCI is afraid that tests wont get bored if they use DRS.
Also they dont want to see a result in test matches...

SouthPaw
on December 4, 2012, 1:57 GMT

Wow, an interesting interview and some very logical points put forward by Srinivasan, especially about DRS.

JoieDeVivre
on December 4, 2012, 1:44 GMT

Looking forward to the full interview but I must admit I'm a bit disappointed the BCCI is not losing it's sleep over India losing all Test Matches against England and Australia. It doesn't need an Einstein to figure out why India lost & what is worrying is nothing concrete has been done and the worry is the trend may continue when we play SAF next year. I was also looking forward to hear from BCCI on the quality of pitches though not the ones to be played aganist England but in Ranji games.
Having a prime home season is long overdue and really is something which should have be done long back. Ideally you want India to play at least 6-7 Tests every season at home. Finally, might sound a bit odd but do away with the caps Indian players wear during Test Matches, why can't we have proper Test caps, after all Test Cricket is for purists, may be I'm still from old school of thought but Test Cricket should be played with absolutely correct attire.

on December 4, 2012, 0:06 GMT

So India will play at home from September to March? When do they intend to tour Australia, SA or NZ? And yes we see India's PoV on DRS, Luddites.

correctcall
on December 3, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Seems like Srinivasan thinks he is on top of his game so why did Mr Bal not ask him the reason the BCCI has not finalised the tour schedule for the visiting Aussies due to commence in Feb 2013. Is it incompetence or can't Dhoni decide which are the most plyable curators who will doctor the pitch to order?

InsideHedge
on December 3, 2012, 23:57 GMT

Finally a response from Srinivasan and the BCCI, they've never been good with PR, I've been saying for years that a good PR will improve their image. The DRS has many issues, and I look fwd to reading a detailed objection. The point Srinivasan makes about the restriction of 2 reviews is poignant, something that all fans will have considered. Once again a lower order batsman loses out because 2 reviews are usually spent by the time the #6 comes in. Also great to see they're considering a structured calendar and overseas players in Ranjis - they did have a couple a few yrs back, I remember Vikram Solanki playing. Amazed previous panels never went thru these proposals, they're nothing but common sense.

jahufer
on December 3, 2012, 23:28 GMT

Not an intellectual reply from Mr. Srinivasan , it is one of the worst interview from BCCI Head, he is just justifying the IPL , reasons for losing test matches abroad & DRS. how come then England won the last test? he batter prepare the reply soon for the series loss. so does he mean that India will fail all the abroad matches from now on?

bobagorof
on December 3, 2012, 23:05 GMT

"which itself is a contradiction as in cricket the umpire's verdict is final" - this didn't seem to stop India complaining about Steve Bucknor's decisions in the Sydney Test in 2008. The Indian management had him removed from standing in the following match, when he was scheduled to officiate.

While I take the point that there are flaws in the application of the technology (eg the 2 metre rule), I disagree that the technology must be 'perfect' to be used. In essence, he's arguing that if a system is 97% accurate it's not good enough, so we'll use the current 92% system. Surely the argument should not be whether a system is perfect, but whether it is more accurate than the current system (and then whether the improvement is worth the cost). Even though it is not 'perfect', is he really arguing that more accuracy isn't a good thing?

Nutcutlet
on December 3, 2012, 22:22 GMT

Let's take one issue from this pot-pourri of sound bites: the DRS. When someone says I do/ don't BELIEVE in X, the very choice of verb tells us that the decision is based on something other than empirical evidence. 'Believe' is a word that belongs to the spiritual/ religious realm, where beliefs are personal, don't require justification, cannot be verified, because their essence lies in an other-worldly sphere! In other words, it is no more or less than an assertion -- & that, given its contentious nature, can be seen as a refusal to accept the scientifically-based findings that are absolutely acceptable to other cricket-playing countries. It is calculated that without DRS decisions are 5% more accurate than reliance on the umpire alone (92/97).This is fact, scientifically tested & proven! In short, unless something has been lost in translation into English, this is not an argument. It's not a sensible or intelligent position to adopt, because it rejects science in favour of.. belief!

on December 3, 2012, 21:18 GMT

Mr Srinivasan, if it's a free world for the IPL, why does the BCCI refuse to provide NOC to Indian players to play in non-Indian T20 leagues? Many Indians would love to see someone like Kohli in Big Bash League.

Cpt.Meanster
on December 3, 2012, 21:09 GMT

Out of everything Srinivasan said, I ONLY agree with him on the 'prime home season' thing. Yes, it's about time we have our OWN prime season like the Australians, South Africans and English. Having said that, I totally disagree with him on the DRS views and on the talk about the 8-0 loss while touring away. Mr. Srinivasan, of course home teams play well BUT come on ! We played HORRIBLY to get thrashed 8-0. There was zero effort from our team and it hurt even more when our players behaved as if they didn't care about it. It was an embarrassment to India, to the team and the glorious history of our cricket. How dare you say it 'just happens' ? How about trying to do something about those losses ? Also, you say India play well at home ? How is that ? We lost badly at Mumbai and we ALMOST lost to NZ had it not been for Harbhajan's hundreds. So how dare you tell Indian fans we are playing OKAY.. when we actually are not ! Sorry, we fans deserve better from the BCCI.

ejsiddiqui
on December 3, 2012, 20:43 GMT

LOL, tell which technology in the world is perfect? ---- NOT A SINGLE TECHNOLOGY IN THE WORLD IS PERFECT ----
Cars, Trains, Planes etc. Road accidents, Train accidents and Plane crashes do happen but we still use them (and even Mr. SSrinivasan also use them).

SagirParkar
on December 3, 2012, 19:41 GMT

i like the idea.. since Srinivasan has taken over, he has made some really bold and positive changes.. not just to the schedule and structure of the Ranji tournament but also by honouring past indian captains, initiating a sort of financial remuneration to past players who are struggling to make ends meet, etc..
looks like his heart is in the right place.. just got to see how much the 'business' aspect of the BCCI dictate its working, esp with regards to managing current players and getting the team back on track..

SSRajan
on December 3, 2012, 19:28 GMT

A very sensible approach. The excerpts seem to show a very intelligent approach indeed by the BCCI and Srinivasan .. Looking forward to the full interview..

mautan
on December 3, 2012, 19:26 GMT

"So we concede the fact that there was less than adequate perfection. Which is our point, if you want to use technology it must be perfect."

Can Mr Srinivasan name a few items in india or even life that are 'perfect'? ha haha. Perfection and we Indians run parellel to each other. Without DRS, many matches would be unfairly lost or won..as simple as that.

Ramski1
on December 3, 2012, 19:13 GMT

Finally a positive move from the BCCI. India need a structured cricket calender and they need to structure it with Test Cricket at the core.
I am not an IPL fan but recognise its value and popularity.
A very simple structure would be a season starting in September til March (7 months)
There would be a 3 test series (vs SL,NZ,WI) and a 3-4 test series per season (vs Pak, Aus, Eng, SA).
Have Test Cricket focused in the big cities therefore creating an annual event (like the Lords test or MCG test) ie Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai.
Play the IPL at the end of the season in Apri-Mayl.
Re-establish ties with Pakistan and make this the Iconic series - possibly 5 tests
Improve marketing of test Cricket (use some of the billions floating around the corridors of the BCCI) to create some buzz and really explain to people why Test Cricket is such a challenge.

Simple!

AatifM
on December 3, 2012, 19:13 GMT

I think this is a very reasonable and sound step by BCCI. Less travel for international teams, more competative domestic cricket.

No featured comments at the moment.

AatifM
on December 3, 2012, 19:13 GMT

I think this is a very reasonable and sound step by BCCI. Less travel for international teams, more competative domestic cricket.

Ramski1
on December 3, 2012, 19:13 GMT

Finally a positive move from the BCCI. India need a structured cricket calender and they need to structure it with Test Cricket at the core.
I am not an IPL fan but recognise its value and popularity.
A very simple structure would be a season starting in September til March (7 months)
There would be a 3 test series (vs SL,NZ,WI) and a 3-4 test series per season (vs Pak, Aus, Eng, SA).
Have Test Cricket focused in the big cities therefore creating an annual event (like the Lords test or MCG test) ie Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai.
Play the IPL at the end of the season in Apri-Mayl.
Re-establish ties with Pakistan and make this the Iconic series - possibly 5 tests
Improve marketing of test Cricket (use some of the billions floating around the corridors of the BCCI) to create some buzz and really explain to people why Test Cricket is such a challenge.

Simple!

mautan
on December 3, 2012, 19:26 GMT

"So we concede the fact that there was less than adequate perfection. Which is our point, if you want to use technology it must be perfect."

Can Mr Srinivasan name a few items in india or even life that are 'perfect'? ha haha. Perfection and we Indians run parellel to each other. Without DRS, many matches would be unfairly lost or won..as simple as that.

SSRajan
on December 3, 2012, 19:28 GMT

A very sensible approach. The excerpts seem to show a very intelligent approach indeed by the BCCI and Srinivasan .. Looking forward to the full interview..

SagirParkar
on December 3, 2012, 19:41 GMT

i like the idea.. since Srinivasan has taken over, he has made some really bold and positive changes.. not just to the schedule and structure of the Ranji tournament but also by honouring past indian captains, initiating a sort of financial remuneration to past players who are struggling to make ends meet, etc..
looks like his heart is in the right place.. just got to see how much the 'business' aspect of the BCCI dictate its working, esp with regards to managing current players and getting the team back on track..

ejsiddiqui
on December 3, 2012, 20:43 GMT

LOL, tell which technology in the world is perfect? ---- NOT A SINGLE TECHNOLOGY IN THE WORLD IS PERFECT ----
Cars, Trains, Planes etc. Road accidents, Train accidents and Plane crashes do happen but we still use them (and even Mr. SSrinivasan also use them).

Cpt.Meanster
on December 3, 2012, 21:09 GMT

Out of everything Srinivasan said, I ONLY agree with him on the 'prime home season' thing. Yes, it's about time we have our OWN prime season like the Australians, South Africans and English. Having said that, I totally disagree with him on the DRS views and on the talk about the 8-0 loss while touring away. Mr. Srinivasan, of course home teams play well BUT come on ! We played HORRIBLY to get thrashed 8-0. There was zero effort from our team and it hurt even more when our players behaved as if they didn't care about it. It was an embarrassment to India, to the team and the glorious history of our cricket. How dare you say it 'just happens' ? How about trying to do something about those losses ? Also, you say India play well at home ? How is that ? We lost badly at Mumbai and we ALMOST lost to NZ had it not been for Harbhajan's hundreds. So how dare you tell Indian fans we are playing OKAY.. when we actually are not ! Sorry, we fans deserve better from the BCCI.

on December 3, 2012, 21:18 GMT

Mr Srinivasan, if it's a free world for the IPL, why does the BCCI refuse to provide NOC to Indian players to play in non-Indian T20 leagues? Many Indians would love to see someone like Kohli in Big Bash League.

Nutcutlet
on December 3, 2012, 22:22 GMT

Let's take one issue from this pot-pourri of sound bites: the DRS. When someone says I do/ don't BELIEVE in X, the very choice of verb tells us that the decision is based on something other than empirical evidence. 'Believe' is a word that belongs to the spiritual/ religious realm, where beliefs are personal, don't require justification, cannot be verified, because their essence lies in an other-worldly sphere! In other words, it is no more or less than an assertion -- & that, given its contentious nature, can be seen as a refusal to accept the scientifically-based findings that are absolutely acceptable to other cricket-playing countries. It is calculated that without DRS decisions are 5% more accurate than reliance on the umpire alone (92/97).This is fact, scientifically tested & proven! In short, unless something has been lost in translation into English, this is not an argument. It's not a sensible or intelligent position to adopt, because it rejects science in favour of.. belief!

bobagorof
on December 3, 2012, 23:05 GMT

"which itself is a contradiction as in cricket the umpire's verdict is final" - this didn't seem to stop India complaining about Steve Bucknor's decisions in the Sydney Test in 2008. The Indian management had him removed from standing in the following match, when he was scheduled to officiate.

While I take the point that there are flaws in the application of the technology (eg the 2 metre rule), I disagree that the technology must be 'perfect' to be used. In essence, he's arguing that if a system is 97% accurate it's not good enough, so we'll use the current 92% system. Surely the argument should not be whether a system is perfect, but whether it is more accurate than the current system (and then whether the improvement is worth the cost). Even though it is not 'perfect', is he really arguing that more accuracy isn't a good thing?